Nerve Endings Firing Away

I am taking a law class this semester that has exposed me to these tons of cases (mostly United States Supreme Court) that are filled with legalese (jargon for legal jargon) that you can toss around in an argument (or a blog post!) to seem highly erudite. The Supreme Court granted certiorari; what? Come again! The Courts used the ‘strict scrutiny standard’ or ‘rational basis test’ or even, needs to prove legitimate state interests ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. Don’t be fooled by the seemingly innocuous commonplace English phases that are used. Each one of those terms has reams of explanation that define exactly what ‘reasonable’ means.

Making ‘reasonable’ demands from your parents can be vastly different from what the court thinks, or at least like to think so (I am told that you cannot use the First Amendment argument against your parents…at least not until you are 18) When the semester began, I actually enjoyed reading these cases and was briefing them like a man possessed. However, post-midterms the interest seems to have waned and we were just handed out (groan!) two of the largest cases ever creatively called Mount Laurel I and II (oh yeah, they have sequels in legal circles too; have to keep the excitement up).

Anyway, I recently discovered a case that tries to put the fun back in such long winding cases filled with legal jargon. In 2003, Beatles’ Apple Corp. sued Apple Computers for trademark violation. Of course, the entire purpose of trademark protection is to avoid confusion and as TechDirt says, it was doubtful that anyone could mistake the former for the latter. Apple Computers lawyers are arguing that “even a moron in a hurry could not be mistaken“. They are probably right but I would definitely like to see that test being cited often in court opinions. According to the “even a moron in a hurry could not be mistaken” test, we find the appellant guilty of being in a hurry and of course, for being born a moron. Now, that would rekindle my interests in reading cases again.